alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 301 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 301

    Making appropriations for Federal employees working during the 
 Government shutdown beginning on or about December 22, 2018, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 8, 2019

  Mr. Gibbs (for himself, Mr. Stivers, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Meadows, Mr. 
   Tipton, Mr. Griffith, and Mrs. Brooks of Indiana) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    Making appropriations for Federal employees working during the 
 Government shutdown beginning on or about December 22, 2018, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Providing Pay for Essential 
Employees Act''.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF SALARIES OF EXCEPTED GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

    There are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not 
otherwise appropriated, such sums as are necessary to pay, during the 
period of a lapse in discretionary appropriations beginning on or about 
December 22, 2018, the salaries and expenses of any officer or employee 
of the Federal Government who is excepted from the furlough resulting 
from such lapse.
                                 <all>
```
**DAAN-13-02**

**Notification of Rejection of Unilateral Award**

(September 2016)

Unless this is a bilateral award, notice of rejection as described herein is required. The Government's offer to purchase, as evidenced by this order, is made in reliance on your quotation.  If you do not intend to perform this order by the specified delivery date, you must notify the DLA Aviation contract administrator, cited in the “Issue By” block on this award, in writing within 14 business days after award.    

**Failure to provide prompt notice** will adversely affect your past performance rating if you subsequently fail to perform in accordance with the terms of this purchase order.

(End of Notice)
#### In the Matter of Stanley Zionts et al., Respondents, v Town of Amherst, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 814]

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County (Cosgrove, J.), entered November 14, 2002, which granted the CPLR article 78 petition, annulled the determination of the Town of Amherst Town Board and ordered the Town of Amherst Town Board to rezone certain real property.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs and the petition is dismissed.

Memorandum: Respondent, Town of Amherst (Town), appeals from a judgment granting the CPLR article 78 petition, annulling the determination of the Town of Amherst Town *1415Board (Board) to deny petitioners’ rezoning application and ordering the Board to rezone petitioners’ property. Petitioners are owners of property in the Town and in August 2001, they applied to the Board for rezoning of the property from agricultural to residential. The Board denied the application, and petitioners commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review that determination. In annulling the Board’s determination, Supreme Court determined that the denial of petitioners’ application was arbitrary and capricious. We reverse.

Initially, we note that the denial of an application to have property rezoned is a legislative action *(see Matter of Benderson Dev. Co. v Swiatek,*162 AD2d 1023, 1024 [1990]; *Matter of Rodriques v McCluskey,*156 AD2d 369 [1989]) and, therefore, the proper vehicle for review of that determination is an action for a declaratory judgment, not a CPLR article 78 proceeding *(see Benderson Dev. Co.,*162 AD2d at 1023; *Matter of Wolfe v Town Bd. of Town of lslip,*133 AD2d 636 [1987]; *Kasper v Town of Brookhaven,*122 AD2d 200 [1986]; *cf. Home Bldrs. Assn. of Cent. N.Y. v Town of Onondaga,*267 AD2d 973, 974 [1999]). We therefore dismiss the petition.

Even assuming, arguendo, that this action was properly before us, we would nevertheless reverse. We note, however, that a reversal would not have been as the result of an obvious mistake in the wherefore clause of the petition, which was properly disregarded *(see*CPLR 2001). The remainder of the petition, as well as all of the other documents in the record, clearly indicate the rezoning designation sought by petitioners.

When considering a rezoning application, a municipality is not required to state its reasons for denying the application *(see Litz v Town Bd. of Guilderland,*197 AD2d 825, 827 [1993]). The determination denying an application to rezone must be upheld if it “bears a substantial relationship to public health, safety, welfare or morals” *(id.; see Benderson Dev. Co.,*162 AD2d at 1024). We conclude that the record contains evidence that the denial of petitioners’ application was, at least in part, reasonably related to public welfare, health and safety *(see Litz,*197 AD2d at 827-828). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Kehoe, JJ.
AP3.25 APPENDIX 3.25 

CONTRACT CLOSEOUT EXTENSION 

Field Leaend 

Document Identifier 

PllN 

SPIIN: 

CalllOrder or Last 

Modification Number 

Identity Code: 

Administered By 

Identity Code: 

Purchasing Office 

Reserved 

Contract Closeout Group 

Reserved 

Record 

Positionls) 

1-3 

4-1 6 

17-22 

23-28 

29-34 

35-42 

43 

44 

Entrv and Instructions 

Enter code PKZ. 

Enter the number assigned to the contract 

against which contract completion status is 

being reported. See appendix API .48. An 

X-overpunch in rp 10 indicates a 

cancellation. 

Enter the call or order number in rp 17-20 for 

which the contract closeout extension is 

being reported. If applicable, enter the last 

modification number for the call or order in rp 

21-22. If this is not a call or order, enter the 

number of the modification with the latest 

effective date in rp 17-22. See appendix 

API .49. Leave this field blank if not 

applicable. 

Enter the identity code, as reflected in the 

contract, of the office assigned primary 

contract administration responsibility. See 

appendix API .4. 

Enter the identity code, as reflected in the 

contract, of the office issuing the contract. 

See appendix API .4. 

Leave blank. 

Enter the appropriate code in accordance 

with appendix API .30. This code indicates 

the time and condition under which this 

contract is closed. 

Leave blank. 
Field Leaend 

Date Physically 

Completed 

Record 

Positionlsl 

45-51 

Reserved 52-58 

Extended Closeout Date 59-65 

Reserved 

Entrv and Instructions 

Enter the date that the contract is physically 

completed, in accordance with chapter 11, 

subparagraph C11.4.2.1. This date will be 

expressed as year-month-day in accordance 

with appendix API .2. 

Leave blank. 

Enter the date that the contract file will be 

closed by the PO. This date is expressed as 

year-month-day in accordance with appendix 

API .2. 

Leave blank
No. 10-10681.

#### Carmine Sauchelli, Petitioner v. United States Postal Service, et al.

565 U.S. 843, 132 S. Ct. 158,

181 L. Ed. 2d 73,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6471,

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 610.
No. 10-7406.

#### Shemtov Michtavi, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1115, 131 S. Ct. 838,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9823.

178 L. Ed. 2d 569,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 390 Fed. Appx. 852.
# C_2015414EN.01000502.xml

| 14.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Thomas Cook Belgium NV v Thurner Hotel GmbH

(Case C-245/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 - European order for payment procedure - Late statement of opposition - Article 20(2) - Application for review of the European order for payment - Objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin - European order for payment wrongly issued having regard to the requirements laid down in the regulation - Not ‘clearly’ wrongly issued - No ‘exceptional’ circumstances))

(2015/C 414/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Thomas Cook Belgium NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Thurner Hotel GmbH

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 20(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 936/2012 of 4 October 2012, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a defendant on whom a European order for payment has been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 18-2615

___________________________ United States of America lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
v. Benny Lee Jackson lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - Cape Girardeau

____________ Submitted: March 6, 2019 Filed: March 11, 2019 [Unpublished]

____________ Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.Benny Lee Jackson appeals the sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pled guilty to a firearm offense. Having ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court dismisses the appeal. Counsel has moved for leave to w ithdraw and has filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the sentence is unreasonable. The district court accepted the parties’ bindi ng Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, and imposed a sentence pursuant to the plea agreement. This court concludes that the appeal waiver is enforceable, as th e record demonstrates that Jackson entered into the plea agreem ent and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily, his challenge to the sentence falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. See United States v. Scott , 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review); United States v. Andis , 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en ba nc) (appeal waiver will be enforced if appeal falls within scope of waiver , defendant knowingly a nd voluntarily entered into waiver and plea agreemen t, and enforcing waiver woul d not result in miscarriage of justice). This court has reviewed th e record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and found no non-frivolous issu es outside the scope of the appeal waiver. The appeal is dismissed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2-
No. 09-987.

No. 09-991.

#### Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, Petitioner v. Kathleen M. Winn, et al. Gale Garriott, Director, Arizona Department of Revenue, Petitioner v. Kathleen M. Winn, et al.

562 U.S. 959, 131 S. Ct. 497,

178 L. Ed. 2d 284,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8121.

October 12, 2010.

Motion of petitioner Arizona Christian School Tuition Organi*285zation for divided argument denied. Motion of petitioner Gale Garriott and the Acting Solicitor General for leave to allow the Acting Solicitor General to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted, and the time is to be divided as follows: 15 minutes for petitioner Gale Garriott, and 15 minutes for the United States.
# C_2015363EN.01001801.xml

| 3.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 10 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Greece) — Dimos Kropias Attikis v Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

(Case C-473/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/42/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment - Protection regime in respect of the Mount Hymettus area - Modification procedure - Applicability of the directive - Master plan and environmental protection programme for the greater Athens area))

(2015/C 363/21)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dimos Kropias Attikis

Applicant:

Defendant: Ipourgos Perivallontos, Energias kai Klimatikis Allagis

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 2(a) and 3(2)(a) of Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment must be interpreted as meaning that the adoption of a measure containing a plan or programme relating to town and country planning and land use falling within the scope of Directive 2001/42 that modifies an existing plan or programme may not be exempted from the obligation to carry out an environmental assessment under that directive on the ground that that measure is intended to give more specific expression to and implement a master plan established by a hierarchically superior measure that has not itself been the subject of such an environmental assessment.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 12.1.2015.

1

---
# C_2016243EN.01000802.xml

| 4.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 243/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 243/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 May 2016 — Republic of Poland v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

(Case C-358/14) (1)

1

((Action for annulment - Approximation of laws - Directive 2014/40/EU - Article 2(25), Article 6(2)(b), Article 7(1) to (5), the first sentence of Article 7(7), Article 7(12) to (14) and Article 13(1)(c) - Validity - Manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products - Prohibition on the placing on the market of tobacco products with characterising flavours - Tobacco products containing menthol - Legal basis - Article 114 TFEU - Principle of proportionality - Principle of subsidiarity))

(2016/C 243/06)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna and M. Szwarc, Agents)

Applicant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: Romania (represented by: R.-H. Radu, D.M. Bulancea and A. Vacaru, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio, J. Rodrigues and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Segnana, J. Herrmann, K. Pleśniak and M. Simm, Agents)

Defendants:

Interveners in support of the defendants: Ireland (represented by: J. Quaney and A. Joyce, Agents, and by E. Barrington SC and J. Cooke SC and E. Carolan, Barrister-at-Law), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and S. Ghiandoni, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, C. Brodie and M. Holt, Agents, and by I. Rogers QC and S. Abram and E. Metcalfe, Barristers), European Commission (represented by: M. Van Hoof, C. Cattabriga and M. Owsiany-Hornung, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendants:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Ireland, the French Republic, Romania, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland, the French Republic, Romania, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315, 15.9.2014.

1

---
SI USTED TIENE DERECHO A TRABAJAR,

no deje que nadie se lo quite.

Si tiene derecho a trabajar

legalmente en los Estados

Unidos, existen leyes para

protegerlo contra la discriminación en el trabajo.

Debe saber que –

Ningún patrón puede negarle

trabajo, ni puede despedirlo, debido

a su país de origen o su condición

de inmigrante.

En la mayoría de los casos, los

patrones no pueden exigir que usted

sea ciudadano de los Estados Unidos

o residente permanente o negarse a

aceptar documentos válidos por ley.

Si se ha encontrado en

cualquiera de estas situaciones, usted podría tener una

queja válida de discriminación.

Comuníquese con OSC para

obtener ayuda en español.

Llame al 1-800-255-7688.

La línea telefónica para

personas con problemas

de audición, es

1-800-237-2515. En

Washington, D.C., llame al

202-616-5594, o al

202-616-5525 (personas

con problemas de audición), o

escríba a la Oficina del

Consejero Especial, División de

Derechos Civiles, P.O. Box 27728,

Washington, DC 20038-7728.

Departamento de Justicia

De los Estados Unidos,

División de Derechos Civiles

Oficina del Consejero Especial
#### *State, Respondent, v. Whitford, Petitioner,*

No. 91055-3.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 44895-5-II, November 4, 2014, 184 Wn. App. 1024. *Denied*December 2, 2015.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 96-60449

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

BERTHA HAIK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

THE KROGER COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(5:95-CV-31-BRN)

______________________________________________________ April 2, 1997

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The appellant, Bertha Haik, challenges the distric t court's

denial of her post-judgment motion for judgment as a matter of law

and for new trial. Our review of the record reveals that the

evidence is sufficient to support the jury's verdict in favor of

the defendant, the Kroger Company, in this slip and fall case.

Contested jury issues were presented as to whether the cause of Ms.

Haik's fall was moisture left on the floor by employees of Kroger

and if so, whether the store had posted a hazard sign before her

fall. Ms. Haik also did not move for motion for judgment as a2

matter of law before the case was submitted to the jury. Under

these circumstances, to prevail on a post-judgment motion for

j udgment as a matter of law or for a new trial, the moving party

must demonstrate that the non-movant presented no evidence in

support of its claim. S ee Bunch v. Walter

, 673 F.2d 127, 130 (5th

Cir. 1982). Because Kroger did present some evidence to support

the jury verdict, the district court correctly denied Ms. Haik's

post-judgment motions.

AFFIRMED.
2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-24-2012

n v. In Re: John Pickering-George

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-1065

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"n v. In Re: John Pickering-George" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 677.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/677
1

HLD-083 (January 2011) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1065

___________

IN RE: JOHN T. PICKERING-GEORGE (ADOPTED) JOHN R. DALEY, JR.,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of Delaware

(Related to D. Del Civ. No. 10-cv-00313)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

January 31, 2011

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, ALDISERT AND WEIS Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 24, 2012)

_________

OPINION

_________

PER CURIAM

In April 2010, John Pickering-George filed an action in the United States District 

Court for the District of Delaware, apparently seeking “disbursement” of various 

documents. The District Court issued an order directing Pickering-George to complete 

an in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application or pay the filing fee within 21 days, warning that 

failure to do so would result in dismissal of the case (the “fee order”). Pickering-George 

failed to comply with the fee order, and the District Court dismissed the case without 
2

prejudice by order entered July 1, 2010. On August 23, 2010, Pickering-George filed a 

motion for reconsideration, alleging that he did not receive the fee order. The case was 

reassigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark on August 25, 2010. 

In January 2011, Pickering-George filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in this 

Court, complaining about the District Court’s “failure to respond” to his motion for 

reconsideration. Subsequent to the filing of his mandamus petition, the District Court 

granted Pickering-George’s motion for reconsideration, permitting him to pay the filing 

fee or submit an IFP application within 21 days. Pickering-George complied with that 

order and filed an IFP application. The District Court granted that application by order 

entered March 4, 2011. Because the District Court has provided the relief that PickeringGeorge sought in his mandamus petition, we will deny that petition as moot.